477 posts in this topic

kmt_sesh 22,096

Maybe it was the aliens who built the great pyramids who put the Grafiti there which was later copied by the Egyptians.

I can't tell if you're just joking, but to play it safe I will state my own stance that alien intervention need not be taken seriously. Therefore, no further comment is needed for this portion.

Date the Graffiti paint.

I've seen quite a few people suggest this, but it has problems. Depending on exactly what the pigment was made from which produced the graffiti, there might not be anything in it to date. If it does have an organic base and might be subjected to C14 analysis, can we be sure there is enough to date in the first place? Following on that, would it be worth damaging part of an inscription just to carbon date it? What if it is carbon dated and shows a date of around 2500 BCE? Would the fringe be satisfied or would its proponents exclaim that other parts of the graffiti might be fake so let's scrape away more for analysis? I tend to fear this one, myself. Moreover, how could we be certain the graffiti is reliably datable in the first place? Over a century of visitors wrote their own graffiti in there, in relatively modern times (the chambers contain far more modern graffiti than ancient), and some years back the SCA performed a thorough cleaning of the chambers to remove pollutants. Given this, then, even if the graffiti is datable, sample corruption would be almost certain, so it might be an exercise in futility.

In the end, however, no one who is actually familiar with the Great Pyramid on a professional level entertains the notion that the graffiti is fake. You would have to prevent compelling and powerful evidence for the antiquities ministry in Egypt to damage a portion of inscription for the sake of testing. Zecharia Sitchin's The Stairway to Heaven, which I still believe to be the origin of all of this unnecessary silliness, is about as far from compelling and powerful evidence as one can get.

In all my own years of study I've never come across a vetted historian of any field who's familiar with the Great Pyramid and all its parts who doubts the graffiti is fake. Don't hold your breath waiting.

Sitchin was also contacted by the Graffiti forgers great grand son,the ancestor was forced by Vyse to forge the graffiti.

I'm aware of this story. It's a perfect example of the outright dishonesty and intellectual malfeasance of which fringe writers are guilty every day. Aside from perhaps Erich von Däniken, no one was or is quite as skilled at this sort of slight-of-hand as Zecharia Sitchin.

Khufu didn't have the capabilities to build the great pyramid,

Khufu certainly didn't have those capabilities. He was the pampered monarch of one of the most powerful states in the world of the Early Bronze Age. The state over which he ruled, however, was most certainly capable. It had already been erecting pyramids since the time of Djoser. Carbon dating alone establishes beyond rational doubt that the Great Pyramid dates to around the mid-third millennium BCE, so that cinches it. This thread, however, is not for the purposes of arguing over the building of the Great Pyramid, nor do I care for it to be derailed for that purpose. Feel free to start a thread of your own if you wish to discuss it. I imagine it will be UM's Thread #6,835 on the building of the Great Pyramid. Trust me, it's a tired argument, and no one has ever successfully argued against the science.

...he might have even copied his name from some other ancient King.It was very common for people to take credit for other people's achievements and that trend has continued even till today.

It's true that Egyptian kings did this. However, there is of course no real evidence on any level that Khufu did this for the Great Pyramid. The graffiti alone disputes that. And there is no evidence whatsoever that a king named Khnum-Khuf or Khufu ruled before or after the Khufu of Dynasty 4. The Great Pyramid is his.

It is simple logic,if Khufu could build such great structures as his tomb then the 'Egomaniac' would have most definitely built a even bigger palace for himself to live in.

Perhaps he did, in so far as the footprint of the palace might be concerned. It's a pity that almost no royal palaces survive from ancient Egypt. For the tattered remains of those which have come down to us, palaces were built of the same material as common people's homes: mud brick. Mud brick structures don't tend to survive too well after 4,500 years. As far as I'm aware, in fact, no Old Kingdom palaces have ever been definitively identified.

This post is already quite long but I wish to address the other points you made, so I'll continue with another post for them.

DieChecker 17,803

The only things relevant to truth are facts, logic, and the ability of hypothesis or theory to

make accurate prediction. Education can spread knowledge and knowledge can be extremely

beneficial, especially when coupled with experience. Expertise is a thing of wonder that is not

often achieved but easily recognizable usually. The subject here is facts and logic and these

should not be confused with assumptions. I would love to see Kmt_Sesh's expertise reinforce

Harte's supposition but I don't believe this will happen. Even if it does the fact is some of the claims

are counter to the facts. It simply isn't logical or consistent with evidence to suggest that G1 isn't

decorated like a tomb because they didn't have anything to write on the walls.

I'd say that it is not ALWAYS the facts that define what is the truth. In many situations the facts can be contrary to each other, or there may be 2 contrary points to a set of 1023 points. Those 2 points are then usually discarded or somehow explained. What is not Usually done is take those 2 points and define the Truth around them and discard the other 1021 points. That is where expertise and experience and education come in... more so then even Logic. In Historical situations, making assumptions is the greatest way to move forward with figuring out the Truth.

What is illogical about decorating the temple complex, which people visited and worshiped at, rather then decorating the tomb itself? Later pyramids were so small as to be their own temple, and thus they decorated the inside with text. It seems very straightforward and logcial to me....

Edited April 10, 2013 by DieChecker

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

kmt_sesh 22,096

1.Several cartouches with different forms/spellings were discovered (or fraudulently inscribed) on the walls of the relieving chambers. These names are suppose to identify the owner and purpose of the Great Pyramid. These names are: Saufou or Shoufou (Supis), Khoufou (Cheops), SENeshoufou, Raufu, Khnem-Khufu (Chephren?), and Khufu. Which one is it?

This sounds like something straight from the pages of Sitchin, or perhaps—to give you credit—from very old research. I've seen this argument before, and to be fair to Sitchin, it mostly comes from historians of the mid- to late-nineteenth century. That is not exactly reliable source material (but Sitchin always resolutely avoided citing modern research, or if he did, he misrepresented it for his agenda). Using only research that old would make about as much sense as a medical student using only medical texts of the mid-nineteenth century for the sake of his or her education.

I've been going back and forth with Scott on something of the same issue. At the time the graffiti was discovered, Champollion had deciphered hieroglyphs only fifteen years earlier. Very few people in the mid-nineteenth century had a working understanding of the script, which includes professional historians of the time. In other words, even the well-educated historians who examined the graffiti were not sure how to read it. No one today who has the requisite training in hieroglyphs—even an amateur historian such as I—has any trouble reading the names in the relieving chamber and identifying them as Khufu's formal birth name (Khnum-Khuf or Khnum-Khufu), informal name (Khufu), and Horus name (Medjedu). They all refer to the same man. You can pick out these three names in your list above. None of the others represent kings who ever ruled over Egypt, nor do the glyphs in the graffiti spell those names.

2. Hieroglyphic script was of a semi-hieratic style, which was not practiced until the Middle Kingdom (2000 BC.)

A common fallacy and oft-repeated by people not familiar with the ancient Egyptian written scripts. To be technical the graffiti is more a form of linear hieroglyphs, which is really nothing more than hieroglyphs written informally by hand. The earliest hieroglyphs have been dated to around 5300 BCE and hieratic to no more than a century later—in other words, almost a millennium before Khufu was born. Linear hieroglyphs date to the same origin because, again, they're nothing more than hieroglyphs in a hand-written form.

3.No funerary text, hieroglyphics, or frescoes exists to depict the GP as a tomb.

The mortuary temple alone discounts this idea. As badly ruined as it was by modern times, fragments were recovered where the basalt slabs are now (on the east side of the pyramid) and provide researchers with a decent idea of the overall decoration plan. Further fragments have been recovered from the ruined causeway, and even more that were taken from the location and built into the Middle Kingdom pyramid of Amenemhat I (Dynasty 12). A notable seen on these fragments is a prominent depiction of Wepwawet, an important funerary deity whose name (translated as "Opener of the Way") indicates his funerary function of guiding the king into the afterlife.

For the ancient Egyptians to spend so much time, energy and money to build such a monument and not spend one ounce of time or energy to decorate it in their customary elaborate, ornate funeral-ritualistic style to depict the awe-inspiring structure as a tomb for their great Pharaoh (King!) makes no common sense at all...

It doesn't make sense only to those unfamiliar with royal tombs of the Old Kingdom. Aside from the occasional smattering of glyphs in the subterranean passageways of Djoser's pyramid, no royal pyramid from Old Kingdom through Middle Kingdom bears inscriptions (aside from those of Dynasty 5 and 6). And aside from a few notable tombs of high-status dignitaries, very few private tombs were decorated, either. The principal exception is the offering chapel, a key component of all tombs from the Old Kingdom on. These typically were decorated, at least to a degree. Khufu's offering chapel was in fact his mortuary temple, which extends to the causeway—and as we've seen, these were decorated.

In other words, the ideas of a modern person who's never actually studied the culture in question, don't matter much. An argument must be framed from the extant evidence of the culture in question, and in that light, the overall mortuary aspect of the pyramid complex is crystal clear. This extends to the logical argument of the countless tombs surrounding all three colossal pyramids at Giza. It was quite obviously a massive burial ground.

4.No physical evidence exists that proves a mummy was entombed in the stone Coffer, and no physical evidence of any personal possessions (artifacts) that were customarily placed in the tomb with the deceased has ever been found. Nothing. Nada. It's as if someone went through the entire pyramid and swept it clean with a broom. I find these equally strange.

The lack of human remains contemporary to the pyramid is perhaps the weakest avenue to which fringe proponents turn. If we truly were to take this seriously, by extension we would have to include the majority of tombs archaeologists have excavated in the NIle Valley—because the original occupant of those tombs is rarely found. An archaeologist is very luck to find a mostly undisturbed tomb once in a decade, due to everything from tomb robbing to intrusive burials. A completely unrobbed tomb is much rarer than that. As far as grave goods are concerned, the same fallacy is at play. Pyramids from the Old through the Middle kingdoms have rarely yielded anything of note from their contemporary times.

5.No inscriptions or designs exist on the exterior of the Coffer. This is explained in detail on the following page.

This is related to the lack of decoration plans inside the royal tombs themselves. Very few Old Kingdom sarcophagi bear inscriptions or decoration plans aside from the palace-facade motif. Sarcophagi were not regularly detailed with decoration plans until late in the Old Kingdom.

6. Nathaniel Davison discovered the first relieving chamber in 1765 (72 years before Vyse). No hieroglyphic inscriptions were discovered in this chamber. On the other hand, Col. Vyse discovered all the chambers above Davison's Chamber, and oddly enough, they are the ONLY chambers with the ONLY hieroglyphic inscriptions that have ever been found inside the GP. Coincidence?

This doesn't really prove anything. All it says is that workmen did not apply graffiti to the walls of the lowest-most chamber. To argue otherwise is to suggest that Vyse was hoping to find higher chambers for the express purpose of fraudulently painting symbols in them. I've already been debating Scott about this in enough detail, so I needn't repeat myself here. Feel free to peruse those posts. The gist of it is, due to the complicated nature of the graffiti and the limited understanding of hieroglyphs at that time (1837), it's beyond unrealistic to suggest that Howard Vyse could successfully perpetrated such a sophisticated hoax. It's rather doubtful at that time that even Champollion could've done so—had he lived long enough—and no one at that time possessed a greater knowledge of the script than he did.

7.Why is the most important cartouche of Khufu found inside Campbell's Chamber and drawn by Vyse at the time of the discovery unlike the same cartouche that is painted on the wall in the same chamber today? Why is there three crosshatches inside the circle, depicting a sieve in the cartouche today when they did NOT exist at the time of it was discovered in 1837? Did this cartouche undergo some form of (fraudulent?) restoration?

The striations in the Aa1 glyph, or lack thereof, prove nothing. It merely reveals that those who perpetuate this myth do not know what they're talking about. I've gone over this in detail already in this thread—from the OP to the debate Scott and I have been having—so the information is already there to peruse.

I welcome it. Just know that my above attack is not aimed at you so much as at your source.

And just beware what you find on the internet because more often than not the information contained therein is questionable, or downright silly. The web page in your link is optimistically called "The Smoking Gun." It's more like an empty water pistol. It merely repeats the same inaccurate and short-sighted fringe whimsy that clutters the internet.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

cladking 329

The mortuary temple alone discounts this idea. As badly ruined as it was by modern times, fragments were recovered where the basalt slabs are now (on the east side of the pyramid) and provide researchers with a decent idea of the overall decoration plan. Further fragments have been recovered from the ruined causeway, and even more that were taken from the location and built into the Middle Kingdom pyramid of Amenemhat I (Dynasty 12). A notable seen on these fragments is a prominent depiction of Wepwawet, an important funerary deity whose name (translated as "Opener of the Way") indicates his funerary function of guiding the king into the afterlife.

"Wepwawet" was, no doubt, "opener of the way" by the time the book of the dead

was written many centuries after the great pyramids were built. The "cultural context"

from nearer the time refers only to the Eye of Horus as the opener of the way. While

Wepwawet had a mortuary function in later history I'm aware of no evidence to tie him

to one earlier. I have little doubt as to the meaning of the name but getting "tomb" from

"opener of the way" is a matter of interpretation.

Scott Creighton's point stands. There is no text depicting the pyramid as a tomb.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Harsh86_Patel 112

So, Harsh, what, according to you, would be the possible reason for the construction of the Great Pyramid?

The most plausible explanation in general is that it was built as a tomb for Khufu.

Try the Occam's Razor.

I feel Occam's Razor would go against any possibility of the Great Pyramids being a tomb.....why would so many waste so much time and energy to build such a huge structure just to be used just as a tomb. Common sense and logic goes against this premise.

I don't know why the great pyramids were constructed but surely they were not mere tombs.

Also the rain water erosion marks on the sphinx are very telling, the sphinx and also the great pyramid maybe very old structures probably having nothing to do with the egyptian civilization as we know it.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Harsh86_Patel 112

The math discussed is just the concept of "proof" itself, which cannot be applied at all in the real (and imperfect) world. Only in the perfect world of mathematics can one claim that anything at all has (or hasn't) been "proven.

Harte

Since you refer to math i would also like to know your opinion on this particular conundrum:

What were modern HSS doing for 1,95,000 years since they have been around for 200,000 years as declared by evolutionists....within small span of last 5000 years we have advanced so much.Do you think it is mathematically right to assume that we may have achieved civilization and advance technology way before in the 1,95,000 years?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Harsh86_Patel 112

I welcome it. Just know that my above attack is not aimed at you so much as at your source.

And just beware what you find on the internet because more often than not the information contained therein is questionable, or downright silly. The web page in your link is optimistically called "The Smoking Gun." It's more like an empty water pistol. It merely repeats the same inaccurate and short-sighted fringe whimsy that clutters the internet.

I don't see it as an attack, i like your post as you are passionate about it and unlike other topics you are giving your own opinion and reasoning rather then just using other people's opinions....this type of debate is the only thing that interests me,as i am not here to listen to blind regurgitations of the mainstream.

Though the doubts raised by the source also seem valid and thought provoking.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Scott Creighton 58

SC: I shall keep this brief lest we begin debating everything and the kitchen sink.

Whether you like it or not, accept it or not, the simple truth of the matter is that, contrary to the claims made by Egypt-apologists, Howard-Vyse could very easily have perpetrated a fraud in these chambers of the GP without any understanding of AE script. The only skills Howard-Vyse required were:

The ability to recognize the name Khufu inside a cartouche within a line of AE script. (This cartouche was published by Rosellini 5 years before Howard-Vyse set foot in Egypt).

The ability to copy verbatim AE script. (His own journal proves he could do this).

This is not to say that Howard-Vyse DID perpetrate a fraud, merely that he COULD have done it. My own view is that he probably DID perpetrate fraud and I come to this opinion on the following grounds:

His morally corrupt character as exhibited during his political career.

The Humphries Brewer letter, claiming that Raven and Hill renewed some markings and painted new ones in the GP.

The Howard-Vyse debacle of the supposed Menkaure remains in G3 – a coffin from one age, bones from another age (wrapped in wool which an AE king would never be wrapped in), neither of which have been dated to the time of Menkaure. This smacks of attempted deception on the part of Howard-Vyse and his team.

Of course, this debate could be settled fairly easily since there is a means by which the veracity (or otherwise) of these markings could be established. The question really is whether there is the political will on the part of the Egyptologists to have it done.

Vyse used gunpowder to blast his way into these chambers. Gunpowder leaves a very fine residue on surfaces that are in close proximity to the blast and may also leave specific blast patterns (spatter). This residue may be microscopic but forensic tests for specific ratios of nitrates and leads on the surfaces affected by the blast i.e. the floor, walls and ceiling of Campbell's Chamber could be tested for this residue. If the pattern of residue is significantly lower (or nil) on the inscriptions then this would suggest the inscriptions were placed AFTER the gunpowder blast and not before it. If the residue is the same on the surface of the markings as elsewhere in the chamber then this, I believe, would vindicate Vyse. I imagine it would be a fairly simple test.

Question is - is consensus Egyptology prepared to have such a test performed? Or are they happy to allow this particular debate to fester indefinitely in order to maintain the status quo? Do they really want to know the answer? Do they really care about the truth? Or are they afraid of what might be revealed by such a test?

Share on other sites

Quaentum 1,639

I feel Occam's Razor would go against any possibility of the Great Pyramids being a tomb.....why would so many waste so much time and energy to build such a huge structure just to be used just as a tomb. Common sense and logic goes against this premise.

I don't know why the great pyramids were constructed but surely they were not mere tombs.

Also the rain water erosion marks on the sphinx are very telling, the sphinx and also the great pyramid maybe very old structures probably having nothing to do with the egyptian civilization as we know it.

Imagine your descendant, Harsh86_Patel the 25th, 2000 years from now making the comment that Occam's Razor goes against the possibility that St. Peters Basilica was built just to worship a single deity. Why would so many waste so much time (120 years) and energy to build such a huge structure for that purpose. Logic and common sense goes against this premise.

Edited April 10, 2013 by Quaentum

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

DieChecker 17,803

I feel Occam's Razor would go against any possibility of the Great Pyramids being a tomb.....why would so many waste so much time and energy to build such a huge structure just to be used just as a tomb. Common sense and logic goes against this premise.

Because these people were deadly serious in their belief in magic and gods. AND, the Pharoah was a living god who lived among them and told them what to do. AND, he told them to build a pyramid. Very straightforeward.

You're using 21st century logic and common sense. The people of 4500 BP had no idea how NOT to believe in gods, or the Total power of the Pharoah.

I don't know why the great pyramids were constructed but surely they were not mere tombs.

True... They were also monuments and temples to the deceased Pharoahs.

Also the rain water erosion marks on the sphinx are very telling, the sphinx and also the great pyramid maybe very old structures probably having nothing to do with the egyptian civilization as we know it.

Have you seen the erosion marks on the casing stones at the base of the Great Pyramid? It is much worse. The water erosion (even if it is real) likely did not cause ALL that erosion (on the Sphinx). This is just more data juggling to try desperately to show Egyptology is wrong, so that the hundreds of Fringe ideas might be taken more seriously.

Sand erosion on the South side of the Great Pyramid.

Edited April 10, 2013 by DieChecker

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

DieChecker 17,803

Whether you like it or not, accept it or not, the simple truth of the matter is that, contrary to the claims made by Egypt-apologists, Howard-Vyse could very easily have perpetrated a fraud in these chambers of the GP without any understanding of AE script. The only skills Howard-Vyse required were:

1.The ability to recognize the name Khufu inside a cartouche within a line of AE script. (This cartouche was published by Rosellini 5 years before Howard-Vyse set foot in Egypt).

2.The ability to copy verbatim AE script. (His own journal proves he could do this).

This is not to say that Howard-Vyse DID perpetrate a fraud, merely that he COULD have done it. My own view is that he probably DID perpetrate fraud and I come to this opinion on the following grounds:

1.His morally corrupt character as exhibited during his political career.

2.The Humphries Brewer letter, claiming that Raven and Hill renewed some markings and painted new ones in the GP.

3.The Howard-Vyse debacle of the supposed Menkaure remains in G3 – a coffin from one age, bones from another age (wrapped in wool which an AE king would never be wrapped in), neither of which have been dated to the time of Menkaure. This smacks of attempted deception on the part of Howard-Vyse and his team.

That is all true. But, doesn't the finding of graphitti in the air shafts and far between the stones indicate that regardless of if Vyse faked his initial discovery that he was completely and totally correct in claiming the workers put grafitti on the blocks. And that this is Kuffu's pyramid. You are arguing that one data point was faked, but the dozens of later data points (many UN-fakable) indicate that it is likely he Did Not fake it.

Of course, this debate could be settled fairly easily since there is a means by which the veracity (or otherwise) of these markings could be established. The question really is whether there is the political will on the part of the Egyptologists to have it done.

Vyse used gunpowder to blast his way into these chambers. Gunpowder leaves a very fine residue on surfaces that are in close proximity to the blast and may also leave specific blast patterns (spatter). This residue may be microscopic but forensic tests for specific ratios of nitrates and leads on the surfaces affected by the blast i.e. the floor, walls and ceiling of Campbell's Chamber could be tested for this residue. If the pattern of residue is significantly lower (or nil) on the inscriptions then this would suggest the inscriptions were placed AFTER the gunpowder blast and not before it. If the residue is the same on the surface of the markings as elsewhere in the chamber then this, I believe, would vindicate Vyse. I imagine it would be a fairly simple test.

Question is - is consensus Egyptology prepared to have such a test performed? Or are they happy to allow this particular debate to fester indefinitely in order to maintain the status quo? Do they really want to know the answer? Do they really care about the truth? Or are they afraid of what might be revealed by such a test?

SC

That is ridiculous SC. How long has it been? How many hundreds of thousands of people have been through there. How many of them were smoking cigarrettes or cigars? Look at the existing graphitti in the various relieving chambers... There has to be hundreds (Or thousands) of pieces of modern grafitti in those rooms. There is zero chance of getting a good sample, and I very much doubt Egypt is going to allow someone to go scrapping at the "Khufu Graphitti" to try to get a same for testing.

1 person likes this

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

cladking 329

Because these people were deadly serious in their belief in magic and gods. AND, the Pharoah was a living god who lived among them and told them what to do. AND, he told them to build a pyramid. Very straightforeward.

You're using 21st century logic and common sense. The people of 4500 BP had no idea how NOT to believe in gods, or the Total power of the Pharoah.

Logic is logic. There's no logic for one person that isn't logic to another. Something is

either logical or it isn't and it doesn't matter if the person believes in Allah, Osiris, or God.

Common sense isn't common but there's no reason to believe that today's common sense

hasn't prevailed for all time.

You are assuming the king said to build a pyramid so it could be his tomb but there's no

evidence to support this other than the that the pyramids are named after kings.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Oniomancer 1,923

Logic is logic. There's no logic for one person that isn't logic to another. Something is

either logical or it isn't and it doesn't matter if the person believes in Allah, Osiris, or God.

Common sense isn't common but there's no reason to believe that today's common sense

hasn't prevailed for all time.

You are assuming the king said to build a pyramid so it could be his tomb but there's no

evidence to support this other than the that the pyramids are named after kings.

Logic, however, is limited by available information. A logically valid statement with no contradictory data is valid only until such time as such data might arise. Logic is also conditional. Change the conditions and you change the validity of the statement.

I've already had to explain to someone else on site about the relativity and thus the logical fallaciousness of most so-called "common sense." To wit:

Both are subsequently subject to misapplication based on personal belief or bias in interpretation, as Diechecker indicated. To put it in perspective with your assertion, historically, we've been making mistaken judgements based on flawed logic and sensibilities on and off for the past 2000 years. There's no reason to think we were any different another 2000 years before that.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

kmt_sesh 22,096

Logic is logic. There's no logic for one person that isn't logic to another. Something is

either logical or it isn't and it doesn't matter if the person believes in Allah, Osiris, or God.

Common sense isn't common but there's no reason to believe that today's common sense

hasn't prevailed for all time.

You are assuming the king said to build a pyramid so it could be his tomb but there's no

evidence to support this other than the that the pyramids are named after kings.

Logic is dynamic, actually. I often harp on people about logic, but that's based on the science and sense of reason in our modern age. Our culture, education, and socio-political environment shape our views of logic.

So to assume a man living 4,500 years ago would have the same idea of logic as we have in the 21st century, is of course incorrect. People living in a pre-scientific, Bronze Age environment and inhabiting a completely different culture are not going to see things the same way we do. Therefore, their sense of logic is bound to be different from ours.

Link to post

Share on other sites

Quaentum 1,639

Logic is logic. There's no logic for one person that isn't logic to another. Something is

either logical or it isn't and it doesn't matter if the person believes in Allah, Osiris, or God.

Common sense isn't common but there's no reason to believe that today's common sense

hasn't prevailed for all time.

You are assuming the king said to build a pyramid so it could be his tomb but there's no

evidence to support this other than the that the pyramids are named after kings.

Logic can be subjective. Case in point: The person who has researched and knows that a time traveler from the future stopped in the 1970's to get a computer and cd's and then went farther into the past, showed the images on the cd's via the computer to people in different eras and voila, that's how religion started. He is convinced it is true so it is logical to him, but is it logical to you?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Scott Creighton 58

That is all true. But, doesn't the finding of graphitti in the air shafts and far between the stones indicate that regardless of if Vyse faked his initial discovery that he was completely and totally correct in claiming the workers put grafitti on the blocks. And that this is Kuffu's pyramid. You are arguing that one data point was faked, but the dozens of later data points (many UN-fakable) indicate that it is likely he Did Not fake it.

SC: I am saying that, IMO, Howard-Vyse perpetrated a fraud in these chambers of the Great Pyramid. I cannot prove that he did but there are circumstances around his activities that have brought me to that conclusion.

There is no graffiti (i.e. readable AE script) in the ‘air-shafts’. There are marks of unknown determination in the small recess at the end of the southern shaft. I find this also rather peculiar since it appears that the only place there is not readable AE script is in those ‘chambers’ Howard-Vyse did not have first access to.

The marks between the gaps in the granite stones of the ‘relieving chambers’ in no way proves Howard-Vyse could not have placed the other glyphs that are in plain sight. Besides which – it is often claimed that the marks observed through the small gap between the granite blocks could not have been forged since no forger could possibly get his brush into such a tight gap. Well I have heard of one theory that presents a plausible means of placing those marks onto the blocks in those tight gaps. Basically two lengths of thin board are used. Onto the first board are glued some string in the shape of a particular line of AE text. Red ochre is then painted onto the string and this first board is inserted into the gap. The second thin board is then jammed into the same gap, pressing the ochre-soaked string glyphs on the first board onto the blocks. The second board is removed and then the first board is removed. Voila – you have hieroglyphs pressed onto blocks in an otherwise inaccessible place and, as such, presenting a very convincing impression of originality.

DC: That is ridiculous SC. How long has it been? How many hundreds of thousands of people have been through there. How many of them were smoking cigarrettes or cigars? Look at the existing graphitti in the various relieving chambers... There has to be hundreds (Or thousands) of pieces of modern grafitti in those rooms. There is zero chance of getting a good sample, and I very much doubt Egypt is going to allow someone to go scrapping at the "Khufu Graphitti" to try to get a same for testing.

SC: Well, we won’t know for certain if this is a “ridiculous” idea until such time as we actually TRY it.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

TheSearcher 313

So SC, since it can't really be proven that Vyse did fake the inscription and you seem reluctant to accept any argument that he didn't, it's a mere possibility then? I can accept what you say, as a possibility, yes; but I don't see why we should see it as the only one. To be fair, you could be dead wrong all the same.

1 person likes this

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Scott Creighton 58

So SC, since it can't really be proven that Vyse did fake the inscription and you seem reluctant to accept any argument that he didn't, it's a mere possibility then? I can accept what you say, as a possibility, yes; but I don't see why we should see it as the only one. To be fair, you could be dead wrong all the same.

SC: It wasn't so much that Egypt-apolgists were presenting an argument that Howard-Vyse "didn't" perpetrate a fraud - their argument has always been that Howard-Vyse COULDN'T have perpetrated such a fraud since they insisted it would have required of Howard-Vyse an understanding of AE script better than any academic of his day. In short, the Egypt-apologists effectively implied that such a fraud was impossible for Howard-Vyse to perpetrate. I have shown that this is simply not the case and that Howard-Vyse COULD have perpetrated such a fraud, that it wasn't impossible, and that it could have been done without any recourse to advanced knowledge of AE writing and that Howard-Vyse possessed the corrupt moral character to do it.

SC

Edited April 11, 2013 by Scott Creighton

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

TheSearcher 313

Fair enough. However, if I may remark upon it, try to maybe present this more in that light, because some of your posts do make it sound more fact than possibility. I can totally understand the reaction of some other posters.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Harsh86_Patel 112

Imagine your descendant, Harsh86_Patel the 25th, 2000 years from now making the comment that Occam's Razor goes against the possibility that St. Peters Basilica was built just to worship a single deity. Why would so many waste so much time (120 years) and energy to build such a huge structure for that purpose. Logic and common sense goes against this premise.

A place of worship is different from a tomb. Religion is also a industry and a source of power and money for the one's heading it,there is enough selfish reasons to justify building places that would promote your religion and also your power.Now,if you would tell me that St. Peters Basilica was a tomb for a single Human,then i would say you are not making any sense.

Also a flipside is that if you consider that the Egyptians had the time,technology and organisational skills to build the Great Pyramid just as a tomb then what other great things they could have achieved inlcuding advance technology.